Regulatory capture

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether.[2] Regulatory capture refers to the actions by interest groups when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at "capturing" influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest groups are implemented.

... as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit... We propose the general hypothesis: every industry or occupation that has enough political power to utilize the state will seek to control entry. In addition, the regulatory policy will often be so fashioned as to retard the rate of growth of new firms. -- The Theory of Economic Regulation, George Stigler, 1971[3]

Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good. Often cited articles include Bernstein (1955), Huntington (1952), Laffont & Tirole (1991), and Levine & Forrence (1990). The theory of regulatory capture is associated with Nobel laureate economist George Stigler,[4] one of its main developers.[5]

Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[6] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture. Recent evidence suggests that, even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom, more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption (including regulatory capture).[7]

There is substantial academic literature suggesting that smaller government units are easier for small, concentrated industries to capture than large ones. For example, a group of states or provinces with a large timber industry might have their legislature and/or their delegation to the national legislature captured by lumber companies. These states or provinces then becomes the voice of the industry, even to the point of blocking national policies that would be preferred by the majority across the whole federation. Moore and Giovinazzo (2012) call this "distortion gap".[8]

The opposite scenario is possible with very large industries, however. Very large and powerful industries (e.g. energy, banking, weapon system construction) can capture national governments, and then use that power to block policies at the federal, state or provincial level that the voters may want[9], although even local interests can thwart national priorities[10].

The idea of regulatory capture has an obvious economic basis, in that vested interests in an industry have the greatest financial stake in regulatory activity and are more likely to be motivated to influence the regulatory body than dispersed individual consumers,[2] each of whom has little particular incentive to try to influence regulators. When regulators form expert bodies to examine policy, this invariably features current or former industry members, or at the very least, individuals with contacts in the industry.

Some economists, such as Jon Hanson and his co-authors, argue that the phenomenon extends beyond just political agencies and organizations. Businesses have an incentive to control anything that has power over them, including institutions from the media, academia and popular culture, thus they will try to capture them as well. This phenomenon is called "deep capture".[11]

Materialist capture, also called financial capture, in which the captured regulator's motive is based on its material self-interest. This can result from bribery, revolving doors, political donations, or the regulator's desire to maintain its government funding. These forms of capture often amount to political corruption.

Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry.

Another distinction can be made between capture retained by big firms and by small firms.[14] While Stigler mainly referred, in his work,[15] to large firms capturing regulators by bartering their vast resources (materialist capture) – small firms are more prone to retain non-materialist capture via a special underdog rhetoric.[14]

In the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which had regulatory responsibility for offshore oil drilling, was widely cited as an example of regulatory capture.[16][17] The MMS then became the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and on October 1, 2010, the collection of mineral leases was split off from the agency and placed under the Department of the Interior as the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). On October 1, 2011, BOEMRE was then split into two bureaus, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).[18]

The three-stage reorganization, including the name change to BOEMRE, was part of a re-organization by Ken Salazar,[18] who was sworn into office as the new Secretary of the Interior on the same day the name change was announced.[19] Salazar's appointment was controversial because of his ties to the energy industry.[20] As a senator, Salazar voted against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies[21] and in 2006, he voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.[22] One of Salazar's immediate tasks was to "[end] the department's coziness with the industries it regulates"[20] but Daniel R. Patterson, a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, said "Salazar has a disturbingly weak conservation record, particularly on energy development, global warming, endangered wildlife and protecting scientific integrity. It's no surprise oil and gas, mining, agribusiness and other polluting industries that have dominated Interior are supporting rancher Salazar – he's their friend."[20] Indeed, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, which lobbies for the mining industry, praised Salazar, saying that he was not doctrinaire about the use of public lands.[20]

MMS had allowed BP and dozens of other companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first attaining permits to assess threats to endangered species, as required by law.[23] BP and other companies were also given a blanket exemption from having to provide environmental impact statements.[23] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued strong warnings about the risks posed by such drilling and in a 2009 letter, accused MMS of understating the likelihood and potential consequences of a major spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[23] The letter further accused MMS of highlighting the safety of offshore drilling while understating the risks and impact of spills and playing down the fact that spills had been increasing.[23] Both current and former MMS staff scientists said their reports were overruled and altered if they found high risk of accident or environmental impact.[23] Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said, "MMS has given up any pretense of regulating the offshore oil industry. The agency seems to think its mission is to help the oil industry evade environmental laws."[23]

After the Deepwater accident occurred, Salazar said he would delay granting any further drilling permits. Three weeks later, at least five more permits had been issued by the minerals agency.[23] In March 2011, BOEMRE began issuing more offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.[24]Michael Bromwich, head of BOEMRE, said he was disturbed by the speed at which some oil and gas companies were shrugging off Deepwater Horizon as "a complete aberration, a perfect storm, one in a million," but would nonetheless soon be granting more permits to drill for oil and gas in the gulf.[24]

In October 2010, George H. Painter, one of the two Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) administrative law judges, retired, and in the process requested that his cases not be assigned to the other judge, Bruce C. Levine.[25] Painter wrote, "On Judge Levine's first week on the job, nearly twenty years ago, he came into my office and stated that he had promised Wendy Gramm, then Chairwoman of the Commission, that we would never rule in a complainant's favor," Painter wrote.[25] "A review of his rulings will confirm that he fulfilled his vow." In further explaining his request, he wrote, "Judge Levine, in the cynical guise of enforcing the rules, forces pro se complainants to run a hostile procedural gauntlet until they lose hope, and either withdraw their complaint or settle for a pittance, regardless of the merits of the case."[25] Gramm, wife of former Senator Phil Gramm, was accused of helping Goldman Sachs, Enron and other large firms gain influence over the commodity markets. After leaving the CFTC, Wendy Gramm joined the board of Enron.[25]

Natural gas drilling increased in the United States after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in 2004 that hydraulic fracturing "posed little or no threat" to drinking water.[26] Also known as "fracking", the process was invented by Halliburton in the 1940s.[27]WhistleblowerWeston Wilson says that the EPA's conclusions were "unsupportable" and that five of the seven-member review panel that made the decision had conflicts of interest.[26] A New York Times editorial said the 2004 study "whitewashed the industry and was dismissed by experts as superficial and politically motivated."[27] The EPA is currently prohibited by law from regulating fracking, the result of the "Halliburton Loophole," a clause added to the 2005 energy bill at the request of then-vice presidentDick Cheney, who was CEO of Halliburton before becoming vice president.[26][27] Legislation to close the loophole and restore the EPA's authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing has been referred to committee in both the House and the Senate.[28][29]

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has a dual-mandate both to promote aviation and to regulate its safety. A report by the Department of Transportation that found FAA managers had allowed Southwest Airlines to fly 46 airplanes in 2006 and 2007 that were overdue for safety inspections, ignoring concerns raised by inspectors. Audits of other airlines resulted in two airlines grounding hundreds of planes, causing thousands of flight cancellations.[30] The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee investigated the matter after two FAA whistleblowers, inspectors Charalambe "Bobby" Boutris and Douglas E. Peters, contacted them. Boutris said he attempted to ground Southwest after finding cracks in the fuselage, but was prevented by supervisors he said were friendly with the airline.[31] The committee subsequently held hearings in April 2008. James Oberstar, former chairman of the committee said its investigation uncovered a pattern of regulatory abuse and widespread regulatory lapses, allowing 117 aircraft to be operated commercially although not in compliance with FAA safety rules.[31] Oberstar said there was a "culture of coziness" between senior FAA officials and the airlines and "a systematic breakdown" in the FAA's culture that resulted in "malfeasance, bordering on corruption."[31]

On July 22, 2008, a bill was unanimously approved in the House to tighten regulations concerning airplane maintenance procedures, including the establishment of a whistleblower office and a two-year "cooling off" period that FAA inspectors or supervisors of inspectors must wait before they can work for those they regulated.[30][32] The bill also required rotation of principal maintenance inspectors and stipulated that the word "customer" properly applies to the flying public, not those entities regulated by the FAA.[30] The bill died in a Senate committee that year.[33] In 2008 the FAA proposed to fine Southwest $10.2 million for failing to inspect older planes for cracks,[34] and in 2009 Southwest and the FAA agreed that Southwest would pay a $7.5 million penalty and would adapt new safety procedures, with the fine doubling if Southwest failed to follow through.[35] In September 2009, the FAA administrator issued a directive mandating that the agency use the term "customers" only to refer to the flying public.[36]

In a June 2010 article on regulatory capture, the FAA was cited as an example of "old-style" regulatory capture, "in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation but placing key people to head these regulators."[39]

Legal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been captured by media conglomerates. Peter Schuck of Yale Law School has argued that the FCC is subject to capture by the media industries' leaders and therefore reinforce the operation of corporate cartels in a form of "corporate socialism" that serves to "regressively tax consumers, impoverish small firms, inhibit new entry, stifle innovation, and diminish consumer choice".[40] The FCC selectively granted communications licenses to some radio and television stations in a process that excludes other citizens and little stations from having access to the public.[41]

Meredith Attwell Baker was one of the FCC commissioners who approved a controversial merger between NBC Universal and Comcast. Four months later, she announced her resignation from the FCC to join Comcast's Washington, D.C. lobbying office.[43] Legally, she is prevented from lobbying anyone at the FCC for two years and an agreement made by Comcast with the FCC as a condition of approving the merger will ban her from lobbying any executive branch agency for life.[43] Nonetheless, Craig Aaron, of Free Press, who opposed the merger, complained that "the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows" and said public policy would continue to suffer from the "continuously revolving door at the FCC".[43]

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) is the most influential of the Federal Reserve Banking System. Part of the New York Fed's responsibilities is the regulation of Wall Street, but its president is selected by and reports to a board dominated by the chief executives of some of the banks it oversees.[45] While the New York Fed has always had a closer relationship with Wall Street, during the years that Timothy Geithner was president, he became unusually close with the scions of Wall Street banks,[45] a time when banks and hedge funds were pursuing investment strategies that caused the 2008 financial crisis, which the Fed failed to stop.

During the financial crisis, several major banks that were on the verge of collapse were rescued with government emergency funding.[45] Geithner engineered the New York Fed's purchase of $30 billion of credit default swaps from American International Group (AIG), which it had sold to Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale. By purchasing these contracts, the banks received a "back-door bailout" of 100 cents on the dollar for the contracts.[46] Had the New York Fed allowed AIG to fail, the contracts would have been worth much less, resulting in much lower costs for any taxpayer-funded bailout.[46] Geithner defended his use[46] of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer funds to save the banks from their own mistakes,[45] saying the financial system would have been threatened. At the January 2010 congressional hearing into the AIG bailout, the New York Fed initially refused to identify the counterparties that benefited from AIG's bailout, claiming the information would harm AIG.[46] When it became apparent this information would become public, a legal staffer at the New York Fed e-mailed colleagues to warn them, lamenting the difficulty of continuing to keep Congress in the dark.[46]Jim Rickards calls the bailout a crime and says "the regulatory system has become captive to the banks and the non-banks".[47]

Some have accused The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of acting in the interests of the agricultural, food and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of consumer health interests. One example cited by critics is the approval of recombinant Bovine somatotropin, in which were involved three FDA employees with ties to Monsanto, the company that was seeking approval, namely Margaret Miller, Michael R. Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen.[48][49] However, in response to a lawsuit that was brought by Jeremy Rifkin with respect to potential conflicts of interest, the FDA released the results of an internal audit that found no conflicts[50] and in 1992 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted an investigation and found 'no conflicting financial interests with respect to the drug's approval' and only 'one minor deviation from now superseded FDA regulations'. (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report)".[49][51]

Historians, political scientists, and economists have often used the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), a now-defunct federal regulatory body in the United States, as a classic example of regulatory capture. The creation of the ICC was the result of widespread and longstanding anti-railroad agitation. Richard Olney joined the Grover Cleveland administration as attorney general not long after the ICC was established. Olney, formerly a prominent railroad lawyer, was asked if he could do something to get rid of the ICC.[16] He replied,

"The Commission… is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things.… The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it."[16]

The Commission was later accused of acting in the interests of railroads and trucking companies. The ICC, critics claimed, set rates at artificially high levels and excluded new competitors through a restrictive permitting process.[52]

"Nuclear power is a textbook example of the problem of "regulatory capture"—in which an industry gains control of an agency meant to regulate it. Regulatory capture can be countered only by vigorous public scrutiny and Congressional oversight, but in the 32 years since Three Mile Island, interest in nuclear regulation has declined precipitously."[55]

Then-candidate Barack Obama said in 2007 that the five-member NRC had become "captive of the industries that it regulates" and Joe Biden indicated he had absolutely no confidence in the agency.[56]

The NRC has given a license to "every single reactor requesting one", according Greenpeace USA nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio to refer to the agency approval process as a "rubber stamp".[57] In Vermont, ten days after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami that damaged Japan's Daiichi plant in Fukushima, the NRC approved a 20-year extension for the license of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, although the Vermont state legislature had voted overwhelmingly to deny such an extension.[57][58] The Vermont plant uses the same GE Mark 1 reactor design as the Fukushima Daiichi plant.[57] The plant had been found to be leaking radioactive materials through a network of underground pipes, which Entergy, the company running the plant, had denied under oath even existed. Representative Tony Klein, who chaired the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said that when he asked the NRC about the pipes at a hearing in 2009, the NRC didn't know about their existence, much less that they were leaking.[57] On March 17, 2011, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a study critical of the NRC's 2010 performance as a regulator. The UCS said that through the years, it had found the NRC's enforcement of safety rules has not been "timely, consistent, or effective" and it cited 14 "near-misses" at U.S. plants in 2010 alone.[59] Tyson Slocum, an energy expert at Public Citizen said the nuclear industry has "embedded itself in the political establishment" through "reliable friends from George Bush to Barack Obama", that the government "has really just become cheerleaders for the industry."[60]

Although the exception, there have been instances of a revolving door. Jeffrey Merrifield, who was on the NRC from 1997 to 2008 and was appointed by presidents Clinton and Bush, left the NRC to take an executive position at The Shaw Group,[57] which has a nuclear division regulated by the NRC.[note 1] However, most former commissioners return to academia or public service in other agencies.

A year-long Associated Press (AP) investigation showed that the NRC, working with the industry, has relaxed regulations so that aging reactors can remain in operation.[61] The AP found that wear and tear of plants, such as clogged lines, cracked parts, leaky seals, rust and other deterioration resulted in 26 alerts about emerging safety problems and may have been a factor in 113 of the 226 alerts issued by the NRC between 2005 and June 2011.[61] The NRC repeatedly granted the industry permission to delay repairs and problems often grew worse before they were fixed.[61][note 2]

However, a paper by Stanford University economics professors John B. Taylor and Frank A. Wolak compared the financial services and nuclear industries. While acknowledging both are susceptible in principle to regulatory capture, they concluded regulatory failure – including through regulatory capture – has been much more of a problem in the financial industry and even suggested the financial industry create an analog to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations to reduce regulatory risk.[62]

Similarly in the case of the Allen StanfordPonzi scheme, there were repeated warnings of fraud from both inside and outside the SEC for more than a decade.[66] But the agency did not stop the fraud until 2009, after the Madoff scandal became public in 2008.

Reporter Matt Taibbi calls the SEC a classic case of regulatory capture[79] and the SEC has been described as an agency that was set up to protect the public from Wall Street, but now protects Wall Street from the public.[80] On August 17, 2011, Taibbi reported that in July 2001, a preliminary fraud investigation against Deutsche Bank was stymied by Richard H. Walker, then SEC enforcement director, who began working as general counsel for Deutsche Bank in October 2001. Darcy Flynn, an SEC lawyer, the whistleblower who exposed this case also revealed that for 20 years, the SEC had been routinely destroying all documents related to thousands of preliminary inquiries that were closed rather than proceeding to formal investigation. The SEC is legally required to keep files for 25 years and destruction is supposed to be done by the National Archives and Records Administration. The lack of files deprives investigators of possible background when investigating cases involving those firms. Documents were destroyed for inquiries into Bernard Madoff, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Bank of America and other major Wall Street firms that played key roles in the 2008 financial crisis. The SEC has since changed its policy on destroying those documents and the SEC investigator general is investigating the matter.[81][82]

The decision known as In re Amway Corp., and popularly called Amway '79, made the FTC a captive regulator of the nascent Multi-Level Marketing industry. The situation came to a head in December 2012 when hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management announced an $1 billion short position against the company, and evidently expected the FTC to act, which to date it did not. From a forensic accounting standpoint, there is no difference between a Ponzi-scheme like the Madoff scandal, and a pyramid scheme, except that in the latter the money is laundered through product sales, not investment.[83] The press has widely reported on why the FTC won't act, e.g. Forbes[84] though legal opinion has been very supportive in some quarters, such as Prof. William K. Black, who was instrumental in bringing thousands of criminal prosecutions in the S&L scandal, which was also rife with problems of regulatory capture.[85]

The District of Columbia Taxicab Commission has been criticized[86] for being beholden to taxi companies and drivers rather than ensuring that the District has access to a "safe, comfortable, efficient and affordable taxicab experience in well-equipped vehicles".[87] In particular, the sedan service Uber has faced impediments from the commission and the city council that have prevented it from competing with taxis.[88] Uber's plan to roll out a less expensive service called UberX was called off after the city council proposed an amendment that would force sedan services to charge at least five times the drop rate of taxis as well as higher time and distance charges, explicitly to prevent Uber from competing with taxis.[89]

Some commentators have acknowledged that while Washington State's Initiative I-502 "legalized" marijuana, it did so in a manner that led to a State run monopoly on legal marijuana stores with prices far above that of the existing medical dispensaries,[90] which the State is now trying to close down in favor of the recreational stores, where prices are 2 to 5 times higher than the product can be obtained elsewhere.[91]

Nuclear opponent[97]Eisaku Sato, governor of Fukushima Prefecture from 1988–2006, said a conflict of interest is responsible for NISA's lack of effectiveness as a watchdog.[95] The agency is under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which encourages the development of Japan's nuclear industry. Inadequate inspections are reviewed by expert panels drawn primarily from academia and rarely challenge the agency.[95] Critics say the main weakness in Japan's nuclear industry is weak oversight.[98]SeismologistTakashi Nakata said, "The regulators just rubber-stamp the utilities' reports."[99]

Both the ministry and the agency have ties with nuclear plant operators, such as Tokyo Electric. Some former ministry officials have been offered lucrative jobs in a practice called amakudari, "descent from heaven".[95][98] A panel responsible for re-writing Japan's nuclear safety rules was dominated by experts and advisers from utility companies, said seismology professor Katsuhiko Ishibashi who quit the panel in protest, saying it was rigged and "unscientific".[98][99] The new guidelines, established in 2006, did not set stringent industry-wide earthquake standards, rather nuclear plant operators were left to do their own inspections to ensure their plants were compliant.[98] In 2008, the NISA found all of Japan's reactors to be in compliance with the new earthquake guidelines.[98]

Yoshihiro Kinugasa helped write Japan's nuclear safety rules, later conducted inspections and still in another position at another date, served on a licensing panel, signing off on inspections.[99]

Although warned about HIV contamination of blood products imported from the U.S., the ministry abruptly changed its position on heated and unheated blood products from the U.S., protecting the Green Cross and the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, keeping the Japanese market from being inundated with heat-treated blood from the United States.[100] Because the unheated blood was not taken off the market, 400 people died and over 3,000 people were infected with HIV.[100]

No senior officials were indicted and only one lower-level manager was indicted and convicted.[101] Critics say the major task of the ministry is the protection of industry, rather than of the population.[100] In addition, bureaucrats get amakudari jobs at related industries in their field upon retirement, a system which serves to inhibit regulators.[100] Moriyo Kimura, a critic who works at MHLW, says the ministry does not look after the interests of the public.[101]

^Pete Domenici, a former U.S. senator now promotes nuclear energy. Over the course of his 20 years in government, he received $1.25 million in political contributions connected with the energy sector. From 2000 to 2010, the nuclear industry and people who work in it, contributed $4.6 million to members of Congress, in addition to the $54 million spent by electric utilities, trade groups and other supporters to hire lobbyists, including some former members of Congress. (See Eric Lichtblau, "Lobbyists' Long Effort to Revive Nuclear Industry Faces New Test"The New York Times (March 24, 2011)

^According to the AP, of the United States' 104 operating nuclear power plants, 82 are over 25 years old, the NRC has re-licensed 66 for 20 additional years and another 16 renewal applications are under review.

^Hamilton, Alexander (2013), Small is beautiful, at least in high-income democracies: the distribution of policy-making responsibility, electoral accountability, and incentives for rent extraction [1], World Bank.

^Richter, Wolf (February 21, 2013). "The Military Industrial Complex Is Too Strong Is Too Many States". Retrieved 2017-08-08. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, an “anti-war Democratic senator from Washington State” who “voted against the Iraq war resolution and subsequent troop surges.” She’s spearheading the Senate’s efforts to bring the budget in line. Until it gets to Boeing... “Champion for the Boeing Co.,” is how Boeing spokesman Doug Kennett endorsed her during her reelection campaign in 2010.

^Savage, Charlie (February 6, 2017). "As Trump Vows Building Splurge, Famed Traffic Choke Point Offers Warning". Retrieved 2017-08-14. Millions of people who travel between the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest each year fight through Breezewood, Pa., a strange gap in the Interstate System... no ramps join [I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike] at their crossing. Instead, drivers travel... blocks with traffic lights and dense bazaar of gas stations, fast-food restaurants and motels... [In order] for a bypass to be considered, essentially Breezewood's own Bedford County must propose it... "It's just not an issue that really appears on the radar for us," said Donald Schwartz, the Bedford County planning director.